Pregnant Women in the workplace

[Protostar]

Pregnant Workers Report Growing Discrimination (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050217065309990023)

I think this article warrants a discussion. When I read it I grew more and more frustrated as I sympathize more with the employers than the women. After all, how fair is it for a company not to be able to fire someone they feel cannot preform the duties assigned to them? And even if these women can preform the duties assigned, they still have to take 4-6 weeks off to recuperate. That means 4-6 weeks of non-productivity at the workplace and there's nothing the employer can do about it. Even more angering is the fact that having a baby is not an obligation and a company should not have bear the cost of lost productivity just because you decide to go and get knocked up. I could tolerate taking time off if you had cancer or some random disease and not being able to fire you, but having a kid is not random and all women know when and HOW it happened. I remember in the article a woman saying she burst into tears when she heard they were firing her and she said it wasnt fair. Well its not fair for her to try and force the employer to try and keep her when she ISNT DOING ANYTHING! Its also not fair to the other employees (male and female) who have to do her work in addition to their own.

[johnq]

I have something called 'priapism'. I want a roomier work station and a view of Debbie.

[Protostar]

What does that have to do with the topic?:???:

[hardeeharhar]

I think women shouldn't work at all. I mean, when you take into consideration the time they have to take off to recuperate after their pregnancies, and the fact that women often have more than one child, and they are less productive after they have kids (raising them and all), their careers can't go anywhere so there is no point. And when they are out of the work place, they have no real reason to vote based on issues that would affect their income-earning men. I mean, it is not like they need careers or opinions of their own.

[Outsider]

We should outlaw sex and grow all our children in test tubes. And then have them raised by robots.

Robots with lasers.

[Protostar]

You all took it the wrong way. I am not opposed to women working or voting but I am opposed to forcing companies to keep an employee when he/she is not doing their job. Like I said before, having a baby is not an obligation and I dont think its fair that the company or that person's coworkers should have to share the consequences of that said person's actions.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Protostar
You all took it the wrong way. I am not opposed to women working or voting but I am opposed to forcing companies to keep an employee when he/she is not doing their job. Like I said before, having a baby is not an obligation and I dont think its fair that the company or that person's coworkers should have to share the consequences of that said person's actions.

1. If people don't have babies, there will be no employees for the company to hire in 20 years. If the company fired pregnant women, then it would be leaching off the rest of the baby producing country.

2. You, personally, benefit from people having babies, because without babies the economy would eventually die and you would starve to death.

3. Most women get pregnant, if you automatically fire them when they get pregnant, then that is an automatic bias built into the society against women.

4. Her husband's company benefits by having her stay on, because otherwise he would be under lots more stress, and be less productive (he could possibly even have negative productivity due to being crabby and pissing off the other employees). This balances out if the companies in question are big enough (they share the baby-making load, no pun intended).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Outsider
We should outlaw sex and grow all our children in test tubes. And then have them raised by robots.

Robots with lasers.

Would the lasers be red or blue?

I can't have my test tube kid raised by a robot with a blue laser.

Nick

[johnq]

Originally posted by Protostar
What does that have to do with the topic?:???:

Sorry, I made an apparently obscure reference to an episode of King of the Hill ("Junkie Business (http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-250/epid-4241)").

Essentially Hank is suddenly faced with more and more co-workers allegedly unable to work due to their various "disabilities" but he's forced to cater to their every whim rather than make them actually work. ;)

Nevermind ;)

[johnq]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think women shouldn't work at all. I mean, when you take into consideration the time they have to take off to recuperate after their pregnancies, and the fact that women often have more than one child, and they are less productive after they have kids (raising them and all), their careers can't go anywhere so there is no point. And when they are out of the work place, they have no real reason to vote based on issues that would affect their income-earning men. I mean, it is not like they need careers or opinions of their own.

Best 666th post ever.

I agree wholeheartedly. As would all women. Now, how much did you say the checks would be for each woman? :D You do intend to pay them for not working, right? ;)

[Protostar]

1. If people don't have babies, there will be no employees for the company to hire in 20 years. If the company fired pregnant women, then it would be leaching off the rest of the baby producing country.

2. You, personally, benefit from people having babies, because without babies the economy would eventually die and you would starve to death.

3. Most women get pregnant, if you automatically fire them when they get pregnant, then that is an automatic bias built into the society against women.

4. Her husband's company benefits by having her stay on, because otherwise he would be under lots more stress, and be less productive (he could possibly even have negative productivity due to being crabby and pissing off the other employees). This balances out if the companies in question are big enough (they share the baby-making load, no pun intended).


1.They fire them because either they cannot pull their fair share or they worry about losing productivity,THEREFORE LOSING MONEY, when they take four to six weeks off to go pop out a kid.

2.How so? If people stop having kids how does that effect me? I'll still have a job and a paycheck coming in. In fact it'll be good. Food prices (along with all other prices) will go down because there will be less people to consume them. That'll mean I save a ton of money.

3.Most women CHOOSE to get pregnant. They're not forced to. Therefore they build the bias themselves.

4.Why would her husband be under alot more stress?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.They fire them because either they cannot pull their fair share or they worry about losing productivity,THEREFORE LOSING MONEY, when they take four to six weeks off to go pop out a kid.

not married huh?

no kids?

not even dating i'll bet...no wonder

[johnq]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
not married huh?

no kids?

not even dating i'll bet...no wonder

Maybe he's married, has kids, a mortgage AND runs a small business and needs "all hands on deck".

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by johnq
Maybe he's married, has kids, a mortgage AND runs a small business and needs "all hands on deck".

i was think more about the way he referred to women having babies...most women that I know would be kinda put off by that.

[groverat]

The worth of a person is the amount of capital they can help produce for industry.

God bless America.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.They fire them because either they cannot pull their fair share or they worry about losing productivity,THEREFORE LOSING MONEY, when they take four to six weeks off to go pop out a kid.

2.How so? If people stop having kids how does that effect me? I'll still have a job and a paycheck coming in. In fact it'll be good. Food prices (along with all other prices) will go down because there will be less people to consume them. That'll mean I save a ton of money.

3.Most women CHOOSE to get pregnant. They're not forced to. Therefore they build the bias themselves.

4.Why would her husband be under alot more stress?

Holy fuck.

1. They aren't losing money if it costs more money to train a person to replace the woman for those 6 weeks (and after).

2. Farmers are human. When they cannot have children because their wives need jobs to more fully support them during the off years, there are no new farmers produced and no new farmers means no food.

3. I would hardly say you know what you are talking about here. A couple decides to get pregnant. That would be a man and a woman or a woman and a woman.

4. Get castrated now.

Edit: And please figure out at some point that a lot is two words.

[johnq]

Originally posted by groverat
The worth of a person is the amount of capital they can help produce for industry.

God bless America.


If you think that thinking of humans in terms of their "production potential" is a new, American, or Capitalist thing, then you reallllly need to hit the old history books again.

[Protostar]

Holy fuck.

1. They aren't losing money if it costs more money to train a person to replace the woman for those 6 weeks (and after).

2. Farmers are human. When they cannot have children because their wives need jobs to more fully support them during the off years, there are no new farmers produced and no new farmers means no food.

3. I would hardly say you know what you are talking about here. A couple decides to get pregnant. That would be a man and a woman or a woman and a woman.

4. Get castrated now.

Edit: And please figure out at some point that a lot is two words.

1.These companyies that are firing these women obviously feel that they can save more money by firing them and retraining someone else than by keeping them on.

2.We dont need as many farmers produced because of two reasons. Reason one:machines do the majority of the work nowadays on farms (at least on the big commercial ones) and not as many people are needed. Reason two:it is far more easy and economical for a smaller farm to hire migrant workers rather than to have children and wait for them to reach a working age (7 or 8 ). This is not even mentioning the expense of having to raise that child to the working age.

3.You're right (almost). A couple does decide to have a baby, not get pregnant b/c only the woman can do that. And just as a woman decides she is going to get pregnant the employer should be able to decide to fire her if she is not able to fulfill her working tasks or if the employer feels that her 4-6 week absence would result in too much lost productivity,and therfore lost profits (which are the incentive to start a business)

4.I dont understand the signifigance of this comment. Maybe an insult?

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think women shouldn't work at all. I mean, when you take into consideration the time they have to take off to recuperate after their pregnancies, and the fact that women often have more than one child, and they are less productive after they have kids (raising them and all), their careers can't go anywhere so there is no point. And when they are out of the work place, they have no real reason to vote based on issues that would affect their income-earning men. I mean, it is not like they need careers or opinions of their own.

I really hope this is intended as sarcasm.

I am a mother of four children. I run my own business. My recuperation time after giving birth is a matter of hours. :err:

[Protostar]

I really hope this is intended as sarcasm.

I am a mother of four children. I run my own business. My recuperation time after giving birth is a matter of hours.

See,she said her recuperation took hours,just hours. Now explain to me why everyone else needs 4-6 weeks.

[crazychester]

Originally posted by Protostar
just because you decide to go and get knocked up having a kid is not random and all women know when and HOW it happened A couple does decide to have a baby, not get pregnant b/c only the woman can do that. These comments can mean only one of three things:
1. You're an idiot
2. You're a troll
3. You're a bigoted arsehole with shit for brains

Whatever is the correct answer, you're in luck Protostar because you've chosen to make these offensive comments about women. If you'd made similar remarks about say Jews, blacks or Americans (saints preserve us!), this pig swill thread would have been locked long ago.

But fortunately, you chose women. So you're protected by the special AI Double Standard Clause. Lucky old you. If the system is really working properly, I can now look forward to a reprimand and/or banning for telling you what you so desperately needed to know.

Ain't life grand?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Fangorn
I really hope this is intended as sarcasm.

I am a mother of four children. I run my own business. My recuperation time after giving birth is a matter of hours. :err:

Fangorn, I assure you I was being sarcastic unlike protostar.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
See,she said her recuperation took hours,just hours. Now explain to me why everyone else needs 4-6 weeks.

Why don't you ask her how much time it would take her to fully return to work at an office building 27 miles from her home after giving birth?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.These companyies that are firing these women obviously feel that they can save more money by firing them and retraining someone else than by keeping them on.

2.We dont need as many farmers produced because of two reasons. Reason one:machines do the majority of the work nowadays on farms (at least on the big commercial ones) and not as many people are needed. Reason two:it is far more easy and economical for a smaller farm to hire migrant workers rather than to have children and wait for them to reach a working age (7 or 8 ). This is not even mentioning the expense of having to raise that child to the working age.

3.You're right (almost). A couple does decide to have a baby, not get pregnant b/c only the woman can do that. And just as a woman decides she is going to get pregnant the employer should be able to decide to fire her if she is not able to fulfill her working tasks or if the employer feels that her 4-6 week absence would result in too much lost productivity,and therfore lost profits (which are the incentive to start a business)

4.I dont understand the signifigance of this comment. Maybe an insult?

1. I am not certain they see it that way and I am not certain they have evidence to back up their claims.

2. Taking things literally will sometimes get your head knocked in by a 6'2" D.Phil from Cambridge.

3. And the partner's boss has the right to fire them because the cost of loss time due to raising the child in the future is more than it would take to train a new virgin employee, like yourself.

4. No. It's a warning. Some woman is going to twist your nutsack off. It is far easier to just get it chopped off now, while you still can.

[the cool gut]

Jesus. As if women don't get kicked around enough in the workplace, we have to start dumping on them when they get pregnant as well.

I guess it makes you feel like quite the man to piss on people who have obstacles in life that you will never have. I don't blame you though, I blame your parents for raising you with such low self esteem, that you find comedy in such topics.

[Protostar]

quote:Originally posted by Protostar
just because you decide to go and get knocked up

quote:having a kid is not random and all women know when and HOW it happened

quote:A couple does decide to have a baby, not get pregnant b/c only the woman can do that.

These comments can mean only one of three things:
1. You're an idiot
2. You're a troll
3. You're a bigoted arsehole with shit for brains

Whatever is the correct answer, you're in luck Protostar because you've chosen to make these offensive comments about women. If you'd made similar remarks about say Jews, blacks or Americans (saints preserve us!), this pig swill thread would have been locked long ago.

But fortunately, you chose women. So you're protected by the special AI Double Standard Clause. Lucky old you. If the system is really working properly, I can now look forward to a reprimand and/or banning for telling you what you so desperately needed to know.

Ain't life grand?


How am I an idiot? Explain that. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and assume you a woman. If my assumption is correct then explain to me why instead of debating with me like a reasonable human being you chose to insult me? And furthermore how are my comments offensive? The only thing I've said throughout this entire thread is how having children is not an obligation or a necessity and how these companies are in the right to dismiss workers who are not up to the task of fulfilling thier duties. I dont view it as discrimination. I simply view as trimming the company of dead weight. Removing those workers who choose not or cannot fulfill their obligations to the corporation. I am not opposed to women having children but what they need to realize is that for every action there is a reaction.

[Protostar]

1. I am not certain they see it that way and I am not certain they have evidence to back up their claims.

2. Taking things literally will sometimes get your head knocked in by a 6'2" D.Phil from Cambridge.

3. And the partner's boss has the right to fire them because the cost of loss time due to raising the child in the future is more than it would take to train a new virgin employee, like yourself.

4. No. It's a warning. Some woman is going to twist your nutsack off. It is far easier to just get it chopped off now, while you still can.

1.Then answer me this,if they dont see it that way then why are the firing them?

2.Again,not understanding :???:

3. You think you're hurting me by calling me a virgin? Well think again. I admit it. I am a virgin. I also not like most guys out here who jump on anything that has a set of big tits and a fat ass. I know what can become of that (i.e:
AIDS or worse a kid)

4.I'd like to see a woman try. :lol:

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.Then answer me this,if they dont see it that way then why are the firing them?

2.Again,not understanding :???:

3. You think you're hurting me by calling me a virgin? Well think again. I admit it. I am a virgin. I also not like most guys out here who jump on anything that has a set of big tits and a fat ass. I know what can become of that (i.e:
AIDS or worse a kid)

4.I'd like to see a woman try. :lol:

1. I am not certain.

2. Look at the flow of the conversation that led to the discussion of farms.

3. No. I stayed on that bandwagon for a long time, too, my friend. But you clearly haven't conceived of woman as an equal member of a relationship.

4. You certainly make like it, for all we know.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by groverat
The worth of a person is the amount of capital they can help produce for industry.

God bless America.

... according to.... you?

[slyinthedam]

Originally posted by Protostar
See,she said her recuperation took hours,just hours. Now explain to me why everyone else needs 4-6 weeks.

Do you have any idea of how traumatic giving birth can be? Sorry, silly me, you obvioulsy do not. Just one example for you. My wife had to have a Caesarian Section. This is a major operation requiring the stomach muscles to be cut. It's amazing how many everyday tasks those muscles are used for, and they dont just heal in a few weeks. 6 months later she was just about back to her old self.

Now without her salary we would not be able to feed / clothe / house our daughter. Are you suggesting that only families that are able to be supported by one income be allowed to have children? THis used to be the case, but we live in different times and it is no longer possible for most families to be supported by one breadwinner.

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Fangorn, I assure you I was being sarcastic unlike protostar.

Thanks. I thought so, but sarcasm doesn't always come through in print. :)

[Fangorn]

Forgive rough condition of post; busy day.

1. Yes, one of the reasons I have quick recovery is that I work at home. Not an accident though. I had this set up before the birth of our first child. Second reason is that I have natural, uncomplicated births. The pain killers used in delivery cause the long recovery time in an uncomplicated birth.

2. While I heartily agree to a woman's "right" to work, I question the necessity of it being "off site". But the notion of living on one income is, well, misleading. The notion of a woman living off her husband while "vacuuming in pearls" is relatively new. This is a tangent, although a potentially interesting one if I had time. :)

In short, though, I believe the hiring/firing of pregnant women is strictly between the woman and her employer. The whys and wherefores would take me pages. ;)

[Protostar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by groverat
The worth of a person is the amount of capital they can help produce for industry.

God bless America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



... according to.... you?


According to corporations it is. I dont think many of you understand something. A corporation is not a human being,it does not have feelings for anyone nor should it, and its primary purpose it to make money for its shareholders. It does not care if its employees get to have children or not. The only thing that matters to the board is the productivity goes up and stay up b/c when it does it means revenue will go up and after all the expenses are deducted, profits as well. Now if a woman decides to get pregnant thats her prerogative but she shouldn't be surprised when the company she's working for decides that they're going to get rid of her because of the fear that the forementioned productivity will go down and that may affect profits. Now I know you're going to say that this lost productivity would only result in a minute amount of money lost,but the way I look at things EVERY PENNY COUNTS!

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.They fire them because either they cannot pull their fair share or they worry about losing productivity,THEREFORE LOSING MONEY, when they take four to six weeks off to go pop out a kid.

By and large they would lose money. For many skilled positions or knowledge based positions, it is far more economical to bring the woman back than to train someone else.
Originally posted by Protostar

2.How so? If people stop having kids how does that effect me? I'll still have a job and a paycheck coming in. In fact it'll be good. Food prices (along with all other prices) will go down because there will be less people to consume them. That'll mean I save a ton of money.

Nice theory. Actually, a contracting population would lead to soaring prices. As fewer people to spur the ecomonic engine, you would quickly end up in recession. Children=population growth=economic growth. The ability of a society to reproduce is directly related to it's ability to grow it's economy.
Originally posted by Protostar

3.Most women CHOOSE to get pregnant. They're not forced to. Therefore they build the bias themselves.

Again, most progressive societies recoqnize the importance to their economies of encouraging families to reproduce. Women are given the time to spend with their children because of the recoqnised importance of interaction between the two.

It has is socially recoqnized ideal that a woman be given time to bond with her child, for both their well-being and society's as a whole. Working for a regular paycheck is a relatively new concept, in terms of human evolution. Mothers spending time rearing their children is not as new. Which one would it make more sense to force to adapt to the other?

Originally posted by Protostar

4.Why would her husband be under alot more stress?
Maybe because the sooned his wife is back at work, the sooner he has to start paying extortionist level of childcare? Maybe becuse he is a human being and would prefer the idea of his child spending time with a parent than a stranger?

[Gon]

Imagine an extreme case; a two person startup.
Another one gets pregnant, is unable to work for four months.
I find it very likely that the company goes under.

Protostar could have gotten the point across better, but he's right. A business operates on a cost-benefit scale. A pregnant employee is a significant cost. If you legislate against discriminating against pregnant women, wherever the pregnant women end up working, those businesses alone will bear the cost. This "negative lottery" is just stupid.

Now, if you want to give equal standing to pregnant women and others, the government should pay the expenses of the maternity leave. That distributes the cost to everyone, as should be the case for sweeping policy decisions, and removes reason for the businesses to discriminate.

Frankly I would like to see each and every discrimination law wiped off the books. The only thing that needs such laws is government recruiting, because they have no accountability otherwise.

[Protostar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Protostar
1.They fire them because either they cannot pull their fair share or they worry about losing productivity,THEREFORE LOSING MONEY, when they take four to six weeks off to go pop out a kid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By and large they would lose money. For many skilled positions or knowledge based positions, it is far more economical to bring the woman back than to train someone else.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Protostar

2.How so? If people stop having kids how does that effect me? I'll still have a job and a paycheck coming in. In fact it'll be good. Food prices (along with all other prices) will go down because there will be less people to consume them. That'll mean I save a ton of money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nice theory. Actually, a contracting population would lead to soaring prices. As fewer people to spur the ecomonic engine, you would quickly end up in recession. Children=population growth=economic growth. The ability of a society to reproduce is directly related to it's ability to grow it's economy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Protostar

3.Most women CHOOSE to get pregnant. They're not forced to. Therefore they build the bias themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, most progressive societies recoqnize the importance to their economies of encouraging families to reproduce. Women are given the time to spend with their children because of the recoqnised importance of interaction between the two.

It has is socially recoqnized ideal that a woman be given time to bond with her child, for both their well-being and society's as a whole. Working for a regular paycheck is a relatively new concept, in terms of human evolution. Mothers spending time rearing their children is not as new. Which one would it make more sense to force to adapt to the other?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Protostar

4.Why would her husband be under alot more stress?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe because the sooned his wife is back at work, the sooner he has to start paying extortionist level of childcare? Maybe becuse he is a human being and would prefer the idea of his child spending time with a parent than a stranger?

1.And again I pose the question,if the companies will more money than they will gain by retraining someone else then why are these companies firing them then?

2.I know its a nice theory,that's why it's right. Prices soar during an expansion of an economy not recession. That's b/c companies know that people are making a lot of money and the fix their prices accordingly. If there are less people then prices will drop b/c companies will be fighting over a smaller pool of consumers. That means I, the consumer, win.

3.Why is it so important that they reproduce? What will happen if they dont? And do you think 4-6 weeks is enough time to bond with a child? What happens aftr the 6 week vacation is over,is the child dropped and left like a hot potato?

4.Stranger?! That "stranger" that you are refering to signs his paycheck so he can take care of the forementioned child.
SO I think that "stranger" is pretty damn important. Also why would he what to spend time with the kid anyway? All it does until it's about five is scream and holler.

[Protostar]

Imagine an extreme case; a two person startup.
Another one gets pregnant, is unable to work for four months.
I find it very likely that the company goes under.

Protostar could have gotten the point across better, but he's right. A business operates on a cost-benefit scale. A pregnant employee is a significant cost. If you legislate against discriminating against pregnant women, wherever the pregnant women end up working, those businesses alone will bear the cost. This "negative lottery" is just stupid.

Now, if you want to give equal standing to pregnant women and others, the government should pay the expenses of the maternity leave. That distributes the cost to everyone, as should be the case for sweeping policy decisions, and removes reason for the businesses to discriminate.

Frankly I would like to see each and every discrimination law wiped off the books. The only thing that needs such laws is government recruiting, because they have no accountability otherwise.

FINALLY, someone who understands.:D Thank you,Gon. For a while there I thought I was alone in the dark. I agree with you on the removing the discrimination laws, I too feel they serve no purpose.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Protostar
1.And again I pose the question,if the companies will more money than they will gain by retraining someone else then why are these companies firing them then?

Short-sighted myopia?

Originally posted by Protostar

2.I know its a nice theory,that's why it's right. Prices soar during an expansion of an economy not recession. That's b/c companies know that people are making a lot of money and the fix their prices accordingly. If there are less people then prices will drop b/c companies will be fighting over a smaller pool of consumers. That means I, the consumer, win.

Actually, inflation hits when people aren't buying as much. Economies of scale say that more people buying things, on a large enough scale, will drive prices down. Many more DVD players are sold today than 8 years ago. Are you paying as much for them? If fewer people buy products, on a large scale, then producers must raise prices to make more sale in order to drive profits overall. You theory is just wrong. Research the effects of stagnant population growth on economic growth.
Originally posted by Protostar

3.Why is it so important that they reproduce? What will happen if they dont? And do you think 4-6 weeks is enough time to bond with a child? What happens aftr the 6 week vacation is over,is the child dropped and left like a hot potato?


Umm....survival of the species and all that. Also, most societies, primative and progressive are smart enought to see what would happens when populations contract. As far as the 4-6 weeks. I feel that is very short. In Ontario we have 12 month mat leaves. Part can be taken by the father if the wife returns to work early.

Originally posted by Protostar

4.Stranger?! That "stranger" that you are refering to signs his paycheck so he can take care of the forementioned child.
SO I think that "stranger" is pretty damn important. Also why would he what to spend time with the kid anyway? All it does until it's about five is scream and holler.
The daycare provider signs the parents paycheck? The "stranger" I was referring to is the child care provider that the parents end up sending their children to when they both work. Very few people would argue that this is the ideal situation. You parents must have really head-fvcked you for you to not realize why a parent would want to be involved as possible in the raising of their child.

[hardeeharhar]

The extension of the 14th amendment to worker's rights, however limited it has been, is one of the pinnacle achievements of the US Judiciary.

[Protostar]

Worker's right to do what? I understand a worker's right to a safe working environment,etc. but somewhere along the line an employees' rights stop and the employer's begin. The employer should have the right to fire you in all cases when you cannot satisfy the working requirements,whether your male/female, black/white, pregnant or not. I also feel this should be extended to striking workers as well. You wanna strike? Fine,then strike forever 'cause your FIRED!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
Worker's right to do what? I understand a worker's right to a safe working environment,etc. but somewhere along the line an employees' rights stop and the employer's begin. The employer should have the right to fire you in all cases when you cannot satisfy the working requirements,whether your male/female, black/white, pregnant or not. I also feel this should be extended to striking workers as well. You wanna strike? Fine,then strike forever 'cause your FIRED!

Your adolescent brain will not age well.

[Protostar]

What is it with the insults? I present a reasonable point of view and the only thing that happens is I get constantly insulted? No respect at all.

Jesus. As if women don't get kicked around enough in the workplace, we have to start dumping on them when they get pregnant as well.

I guess it makes you feel like quite the man to piss on people who have obstacles in life that you will never have. I don't blame you though, I blame your parents for raising you with such low self esteem, that you find comedy in such topics.

I laughed when I read this one. Obstacles? What obstacles are you speaking of? Do you mean obstacles that are brought on by the woman herself, such as getting pregnant? If those are obstacles you are speaking of, then yes I do find comedy in them not because I have low self esteem but because they are FUNNY! And do you know why? Because they're not obstacles, they're choices. An obstacle is something that is put in your way that you had no way of preparing to deal with.This would include getting hit by a car and becoming paralyzed or discovering you have cancer. This does not include pregnancy because that was a CHOICE made by the woman and the father of that child

[Gon]

Okay, let's summarize the thread thus far.
"(Protostar is) a bigoted arsehole with shit for brains."
"The worth of a person is the amount of capital they can help produce for industry."
"Some woman is going to twist (Protostar's) nutsack off. It is far easier to just get it chopped off now, while (Protostar) still can."

Given that this thread is predominantly filled with insults, offtopic political rambling and universally untrue crap, I think it's commendable Protostar hasn't even once blown a gasket and reverted to throwing insults like many people have on this very thread when they had no more reason and facts to offer.

I don't see that anyone would have presented any argument against my earlier post (which I understand contained Protostar's main point, just in different words).

Same thing again, different words again:
It shouldn't, under any circumstances except when there is a specific contract, be up to a business to bear the costs of employees who are unable to work.
No one should ever be forced by law to hire someone, or be punished for not hiring someone.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

[hardeeharhar]

Disagree.

There are anti-discrimination laws on the book for a reason. That reason is that buisnesses have in the past desriminated against certain people, be they black, gay, female or otherwise.

There are laws protecting the jobs of people who get sick, there are laws protecting the jobs of people who get injured temporarily. Protection of the jobs of women who get pregnant is being argued against here because it is put forward that they don't need to have children; that they are solely responsible for that decision. These two arguments have been shown to be idiotic. But lets play this game. An individual who gets sick most likely did something that exposed themselves to the cause of the illness (there are rare cases where this isn't the case, just as there are cases where because of a woman's religious beliefs she cannot prevent herself from getting pregnant). They chose to ignore the warnings of their physicians, engaged in reckless behavior, and thus when they have to take a week off because they caught the flu, they should be fired -- in fact, they should be fired after the first day they didn't show up (not doing their work and all that). An individual who got injured also has no right to claim that they couldn't have done something to avoid getting injured and should also lose their jobs.

I highly recommend to both Gon and Protostar to read up on worker's rights and the strugles it took to get basic fair treatment. Women are being singled out here for no reason other than that they make a soft target. They have a unique reproductive condition that forces them to take off time to recover. There is no explicit right to have children, true, but do you want to create a means of taking that implicit right away from women who do help the economy grow outside of the home.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
What is it with the insults? I present a reasonable point of view and the only thing that happens is I get constantly insulted? No respect at all.

Nope. You don't get respect because your view, and the method of presenting it are not reasonable.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Gon

Same thing again, different words again:
It shouldn't, under any circumstances except when there is a specific contract, be up to a business to bear the costs of employees who are unable to work.
No one should ever be forced by law to hire someone, or be punished for not hiring someone.

Agree? Disagree? Why?
Actually, this is different than his arguement. Your arguement has more to do with Affermative Action. I would agree that a company has the right to hire who they choose. I am not a believer in Affermative action.This is irrelavent to this thread.

Protostar's aguement is that the company should have the right to fire a woman, for sole the reason of being pregnant. With that limited reasoning, one could argue that your employer should be allowed to fire you if they find out your wife was pregnant. You would obviously be a distracted employee, so they should cut you before you become a problem.

Why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the fact that men and women are different. It is important for the success of a society that women be allowed to have children unimpeded. In a society that also places high importance on men and women being allowed to work as they choose and are qualified, then the differences between the sexes have to be recognized. The fact that society will always rely on the ability of women to have children and most recoqnize the importance of mothers and their children being together for the short beginning of the childs life, it would seem to reasonable that this would trump the requirement of a society to protect businesses from having to bring you back after a maternity leave.

Question: If the US brought back the draft and you were to be drafted to go to Iraq, should your emplyee have the right you fire you? How about if they find out you signed up for the reserves. Should that be reason enough to can your ass? Well, US law says they have to reinstate returning soldiers. Do either of you comprehend why? Do either of your comprehend the idea of a society, even on based on the principle of free enterprise, placing higher importance on the security of their people? The growth of their society? The protection of their society? It really isn't that hard a concept.

And as many here can attest, I am so conservative minded, it hurts. But, being liberal or conservative without using reason is useless.

[Gon]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There are anti-discrimination laws on the book for a reason. That reason is that buisnesses have in the past desriminated against certain people, be they black, gay, female or otherwise.First, I'm saying discrimination laws are unnecessary. Not that that matters much, because I'm saying these laws are immoral in any case.

Why unnecessary? If a representative of a business discriminates against you on a basis that is not connected to your productivity, he's making a bad business decision. If his superiors hear about it, he's liable to get in trouble and you have a chance of getting another interview, probably with someone else. If the superiors stonewall, or do not act, the whole business loses customers and applicants through bad reputation, loses the best person for the job, and the competitors next door have their shot of getting this best person instead.

Why immoral? Imagine you own a business, down to the last brick of the house it operates from. It's yours. You run it by yourself. It happens to be that you dislike a certain person. However, when you decide to expand your business and advertise for a job opening, this very person turns up and applies. If you look at the profit motive alone, he's the most qualified applicant. The problem is, you despise him. Hiring him would break your moral principles, which you care more about than profit. Exactly what is the 'right' by which he can force you to hire him, or get a contract equal to someone else's, or receive "compensation" for losing something that was never his even for a second? I find this immoral. Therefore, so is the law.

As I understand it, the law pretty much assumes that a job candidate's race, sex, gender and other factors by which it is illegal to discriminate do not matter in business sense. That is incorrect. Suppose you run a bar, and the majority of your clientele, of the whole town even, are intolerant towards some people? It makes no difference what you think. If you hire the wrong kind of person, you'll lose your customers and your business. If that decision is not up to you, it gives others a power over you that they should definitely not have.

[Gon]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There are laws protecting the jobs of people who get sick, there are laws protecting the jobs of people who get injured temporarily. Protection of the jobs of women who get pregnant is being argued against here because it is put forward that they don't need to have children; that they are solely responsible for that decision. These two arguments have been shown to be idiotic...If the society arrives to the conclusion that injured and sick people have to be cared for together, fine. That is OK. But there is no logical connection between that, and the employer of those people. The burden must not be put on him by force of law.

That is not to say the employers can't make the work contract more appealing by incorporating things such as sickness and injury insurance, a binding promise that the employee retains the job during sick leave, generous severance benefits, et cetera. I expect people want that kind of security, and if they were not mandated by law, such things would certainly be added to many contracts.

Also, the employee can perfectly well insure himself against sickness, injury, missed pay, job loss if he so desires.

Completely unpredictable events can be guarded against like that. Pregnancy is totally avoidable, but the same measures would still work.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Protostar's aguement is that the company should have the right to fire a woman, for sole the reason of being pregnant. With that limited reasoning, one could argue that your employer should be allowed to fire you if they find out your wife was pregnant. You would obviously be a distracted employee, so they should cut you before you become a problem.The example is pretty farfetched - you'd have to be a poor employee if a little potential distraction is fiscal grounds to kicking you out. But on to the point.

If the guy next door asks you to cut his lawn for $5 per hour, and you agree, does he need any special reason to tell you to stop working and scram? Do you expect to have a continued "job" after the lawn is cut? No, unless you have a further agreement.

So, the natural state of affairs is, actually, that they can always fire you with or without reason. In practice, when you have a serious job, of course you have negotiated conditions under which resigning and firing happens, severance pay, et cetera.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the fact that men and women are different. It is important for the success of a society that women be allowed to have children unimpeded. In a society that also places high importance on men and women being allowed to work as they choose and are qualified, then the differences between the sexes have to be recognized.You just described free market. You don't arrive there by having more, but less legislation.The fact that society will always rely on the ability of women to have children and most recoqnize the importance of mothers and their children being together for the short beginning of the childs life, it would seem to reasonable that this would trump the requirement of a society to protect businesses from having to bring you back after a maternity leave.You absolutely missed the point. The state does not need to protect businesses and individuals as much as it needs to stop actively impeding them.

It seems that people of our species have been able to successfully grow up, usually raised by our mothers, for a couple tens of thousands of generations now. How is it that we, living the most abundant time period ever, now need legislation in order for the natural proceeding of affairs to continue?Question: If the US brought back the draft and you were to be drafted to go to Iraq, should your emplyee have the right you fire you? How about if they find out you signed up for the reserves. Should that be reason enough to can your ass? Well, US law says they have to reinstate returning soldiers. Do either of you comprehend why? Do either of your comprehend the idea of a society, even on based on the principle of free enterprise, placing higher importance on the security of their people? The growth of their society? The protection of their society? It really isn't that hard a concept.You see - draft is evil. It means the state is taking your freedom. If businesses are forbidden by law to kick the totally unproductive drafted out of job, that means the state is also attacking the freedom of the business owners. Consider this analogy: the state takes $100 out of your pocket. It then partly compensates you for what you lost by taking $50 out of another guy's pocket and putting that in yours. Is it right? Is it right towards you, and is it right towards the other guy?

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Outsider
We should outlaw sex and grow all our children in test tubes. And then have them raised by robots.

Robots with lasers.

If the aforementioned robots are unionized, and made by well-connected friends of politicians, you've just outlined the essence of our new Federal Liberal Childcare plan.

[hardeeharhar]

I am sick of the Libertarian argument that justice is served by individual citizens better than it is served by government action. Take walmart, for instance, whose unethical and indeed immoral business practices have been the subject of a great deal of litigation. These cases are public, and yet there is no public outrage, people haven't stopped shopping there, and even if they have it hasn't made Walmart blink the way the cases have. Without the laws defending the rights of the employees, Walmart would get away with every little insidious thing it wants to.

The market responds much too slowly to affect social change. Dependence on the market is like depending on a hair drier to change the direction of a glacier -- sure after a few years maybe the path is slightly altered, but during that few years your village and the extension cord leading from it to your hair drier have been destroyed.

That is my response to Gon's (in my view simplistic) argument that discrimination is forced to be taken care of privately due to "public" outrage.

[Ra]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Disagree.
...
there are cases where because of a woman's religious beliefs she cannot prevent herself from getting pregnant
...
What now?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Gon
You see - draft is evil. It means the state is taking your freedom. If businesses are forbidden by law to kick the totally unproductive drafted out of job, that means the state is also attacking the freedom of the business owners. Consider this analogy: the state takes $100 out of your pocket. It then partly compensates you for what you lost by taking $50 out of another guy's pocket and putting that in yours. Is it right? Is it right towards you, and is it right towards the other guy?

Um. Conscription is a duty we can be requested to preform at the service of our nation in exchange for our citizenship. That is, we implicitly agree to serve our nation when it calls upon us, in order that we have the protections the nation provides for us. We have been given freedoms by the state.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Ra
What now?

Catholicism.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Um. Conscription is a duty we can be requested to preform at the service of our nation in exchange for our citizenship. That is, we implicitly agree to serve our nation when it calls upon us, in order that we have the protections the nation provides for us. We have been given freedoms by the state.

That's my favorite part of Starship Troopers.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by midwinter
That's my favorite part of Starship Troopers.

Constitutional education, one Hollywood Movie at a time...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Constitutional education, one Hollywood Movie at a time...

Indeed. And yet entirely without irony.

[Gon]

hardeeharhar,

I did not say that private action always or usually arrives at a better end than a pursuit of the state. I do believe that, however, all those considerations are trumped by my opinion that it is totally, wholly unacceptable to make people do things by threatening them with force, unless they are stepping on others' rights with their behavior.

A discrimination law, which mandates I must deal with people I don't voluntarily deal with, violates this principle.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Protostar
Worker's right to do what? I understand a worker's right to a safe working environment,etc. but somewhere along the line an employees' rights stop and the employer's begin. The employer should have the right to fire you in all cases when you cannot satisfy the working requirements,whether your male/female, black/white, pregnant or not. I also feel this should be extended to striking workers as well. You wanna strike? Fine,then strike forever 'cause your FIRED!

What you long for is to return to the good old days of the early 19th century, when the kinds of things you wish could and did happen on a regular basis. Want to only hire illiterate employees? Done! Want to refuse to keep a clock in the workplace? Done! Want to refuse to allow them to carry watches? Done! Want to fire them for whatever reason you want? Done!

You might find it interesting that the changes—unionization, etc—in all of this in England and America coincided with the coming of a real democracy in the 1830s. You might also find it interesting that the position you're carving out for yourself was also occupied by some of the most anti-democracy folks the world has ever seen.

I'm just saying.

[Gon]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Um. Conscription is a duty we can be requested to preform at the service of our nation in exchange for our citizenship. That is, we implicitly agree to serve our nation when it calls upon us, in order that we have the protections the nation provides for us.I just made this great deal under which you give your wallet to me. In exchange I promise not to shoot you. Oh yeah, the deal's implicit and goes in effect if we happen to meet on an alley after 9 PM. You can always opt out, of course, by never being out of the house after 9 PM.

Personally I think such 'agreements' do not bind me.We have been given freedoms by the state.If you have been given freedoms by the state, isn't the logical consequence that they can revoke them anytime? A democratic majority can revoke a minority's freedoms and loot them?

I greatly prefer this way of handling the question:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[midwinter]

/me looks over at Rousseau, who made a weird noise and rolled over in his grave.

[Ra]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Catholicism. And...?

Is the Pope making them have sex or something?

[Protostar]

Protostar's aguement is that the company should have the right to fire a woman, for sole the reason of being pregnant. With that limited reasoning, one could argue that your employer should be allowed to fire you if they find out your wife was pregnant. You would obviously be a distracted employee, so they should cut you before you become a problem.

That is not my arguement. I truly dont care if a woman gets pregnant. That's her problem. What I am arguing,however, is that a company should be able to fire a woman or man if he or she is not able to fulfill their work duties. As for getting pregnant, if it impedes her ability to do work then yes she should be fired. BTW, why is it that I would be a distracted employee?

Why is it so hard for people to come to grips with the fact that men and women are different. It is important for the success of a society that women be allowed to have children unimpeded. In a society that also places high importance on men and women being allowed to work as they choose and are qualified, then the differences between the sexes have to be recognized.

If there're so different then why are women always screaming about being treated the same as men? Since men cant get pregnant (not that any man would want to) and take maternity leave why should women? After all we have treat everyone equally. If we're going to treat women differently just because they're women, then why not pay a man more just because he's a man?

I am sick of the Libertarian argument that justice is served by individual citizens better than it is served by government action. Take walmart, for instance, whose unethical and indeed immoral business practices have been the subject of a great deal of litigation. These cases are public, and yet there is no public outrage, people haven't stopped shopping there, and even if they have it hasn't made Walmart blink the way the cases have. Without the laws defending the rights of the employees, Walmart would get away with every little insidious thing it wants to.

The market responds much too slowly to affect social change. Dependence on the market is like depending on a hair drier to change the direction of a glacier -- sure after a few years maybe the path is slightly altered, but during that few years your village and the extension cord leading from it to your hair drier have been destroyed.

That is my response to Gon's (in my view simplistic) argument that discrimination is forced to be taken care of privately due to "public" outrage.

And I'm sick of the Democratic arguement that it doesnt. If people really cared about what Walmart was doing then they would simply shop elsewhere. Like you said before they dont care so it obviously doesnt matter. If there is no public outrage it is because the groups representing the parties being hurt havent brougtht it to national attention. I bet if the victims were women everyone would know b/c the femi-nazis (sorry I stole that word from Maddox) would boycott and beat any man within an inch of his life who was foolish enough to come within 30 feet of a Walmart. I mean look at what happened to the president of Harvard and he just said ONE SENTENCE!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
And I'm sick of the Democratic arguement that it doesnt. If people really cared about what Walmart was doing then they would simply shop elsewhere. Like you said before they dont care so it obviously doesnt matter. If there is no public outrage it is because the groups representing the parties being hurt havent brougtht it to national attention. I bet if the victims were women everyone would know b/c the femi-nazis (sorry I stole that word from Maddox) would boycott and beat any man within an inch of his life who was foolish enough to come within 30 feet of a Walmart. I mean look at what happened to the president of Harvard and he just said ONE SENTENCE!

The tyranny of the majority and all that. Public outrage that affects bottom lines must be of the sort that would affect movement within the majority. If the majority either doesn't care, or is unable to see that they can affect change, nothing will happen. Look at the Civil Rights movement before Eisenhower acted.

Well, actually, one of the cases involving Walmart does stem from complaints by women. Of course in this case the majority has brushed them off as Femi-nazis.

The president of Harvard was intentionally shaking the trees and it has led to a discussion of these sorts of topics within the scientific community (I know because I am in it).

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Protostar
BTW, why is it that I would be a distracted employee?

When you get older and perhaps find yourself a lady friend you will understand why her bing pregnant would make you distracted.


Originally posted by Protostar

If there're so different then why are women always screaming about being treated the same as men? Since men cant get pregnant (not that any man would want to) and take maternity leave why should women? After all we have treat everyone equally. If we're going to treat women differently just because they're women, then why not pay a man more just because he's a man?

In many progresive countries, men can take a portion of the mat leave. As far as why not pay men more...umm...they are paid more on average..or haven't you heard?

[crazychester]

Originally posted by Protostar
What is it with the insults? I present a reasonable point of view and the only thing that happens is I get constantly insulted? No respect at all. If you want respect and to not be insulted, then don't fill your posts with loaded language and obnoxious comments that reveal you have another agenda. You're the one who came in here playing some idiotic blame game with your comments

Originally posted by Protostar
just because you decide to go and get knocked up

having a kid is not random and all women know when and HOW it happened I've got news for you. It takes two to tango. What exactly are you suggesting? Knocked up? Is that how you'd describe your mother when she was pregnant with you? Yeah well, it's a pity she went and got herself knocked up because she's managed to inflict one more dickhead on the world.

A couple does decide to have a baby, not get pregnant b/c only the woman can do that And that's why we have maternity leave, fuckwit.

The truth here is you've got issues. I see you're a child hater as well as a woman hater. That's a sure sign of a sick individual if ever there was one. You revealed the truth in your very first post when you said

I could tolerate taking time off if you had cancer or some random disease and not being able to fire you What if the person has lung cancer as a result of smoking? Or heart disease due to poor diet? Are you going to apply your screwed up thinking to sick employees as well? Then, you just come straight out with it
Obstacles? What obstacles are you speaking of? Do you mean obstacles that are brought on by the woman herself, such as getting pregnant? If those are obstacles you are speaking of, then yes I do find comedy in them not because I have low self esteem but because they are FUNNY! And do you know why? Because they're not obstacles, they're choices. What you're really dirty on is that pregnancy (at least in your eyes) doesn't involve suffering. Hell, a lot of them actually seem to look forward to it. Damn those bitches, how dare they?

I don't discuss with scum like you. You should never have been allowed to get away with this thread. It's fucking disgusting. You make anymore of your "it's all her fault she got pregnant" comments and I promise I will go all out to get this stinking, piss weak excuse of a thread locked.

Props to billybob for getting the public admission of virginity. Score!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by crazychester
Props to billybob for getting the public admission of virginity. Score!

I just saw billybob stip off his shirt revealing the pasty-white scientist badge of honor. Wait. Is this right? Is he screaming 'GOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!'?

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Protostar
Pregnant Workers Report Growing Discrimination (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050217065309990023)

I think this article warrants a discussion. When I read it I grew more and more frustrated as I sympathize more with the employers than the women. After all, how fair is it for a company not to be able to fire someone they feel cannot preform the duties assigned to them? And even if these women can preform the duties assigned, they still have to take 4-6 weeks off to recuperate. That means 4-6 weeks of non-productivity at the workplace and there's nothing the employer can do about it. Even more angering is the fact that having a baby is not an obligation and a company should not have bear the cost of lost productivity just because you decide to go and get knocked up. I could tolerate taking time off if you had cancer or some random disease and not being able to fire you, but having a kid is not random and all women know when and HOW it happened. I remember in the article a woman saying she burst into tears when she heard they were firing her and she said it wasnt fair. Well its not fair for her to try and force the employer to try and keep her when she ISNT DOING ANYTHING! Its also not fair to the other employees (male and female) who have to do her work in addition to their own.

So what should happen? A women gets pregnant and loses her job. She is unable to properly look after her baby because she does not have enough money so both the baby and the mother suffer? If someone is sick they are paid sick pay. A company needs to prepare for paying sick pay and paternity/maternity leave. It's a fact of life - if we do not produce babies there is no one to work and pay for us when we're old.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I guess the only answer is mandatory spay and neuter for all
members of the workforce.
The business owners and managers will set a good example by going first.
Employees may be excluded from this policy if they can prove that they are childless and homosexual.
All applicants will be subject to DNA screening to insure a minimum
risk of catastrophic illness.
Only full time employees will be granted health insurance.
Of course, no one will be hired as a full time employee.
In the event addtional workers are required to meet a deadline,
department managers will cruise the 7/11 parking lots for casual labor.

Or maybe we should go back to those good 'ol neanderthal days
keeping our women safe in their caves, barefoot and pregnant.
I always did like my rack of mastodon ribs cooked over and open flame.
Or we could use child labor as long as they were in pre-puberty.
If fact, why don't we just repeal all the anti slavery laws and make everybody work for free.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I guess the only answer is mandatory spay and neuter for all
members of the workforce.
The business owners and managers will set a good example by going first.
Employees may be excluded from this policy if they can prove that they are childless and homosexual.
All applicants will be subject to DNA screening to insure a minimum
risk of catastrophic illness.
Only full time employees will be granted health insurance.
Of course, no one will be hired as a full time employee.
In the event addtional workers are required to meet a deadline,
department managers will cruise the 7/11 parking lots for casual labor.

Or maybe we should go back to those good 'ol neanderthal days
keeping our women safe in their caves, barefoot and pregnant.
I always did like my rack of mastodon ribs cooked over and open flame.
Or we could use child labor as long as they were in pre-puberty.
If fact, why don't we just repeal all the anti slavery laws and make everybody work for free.

That's just stupid. It's a real issue, women need security in the workplace. If they want to have children and to work they suffer, not the men. This needs to be addressed especially as less people are having children and a lot later. The way to address this is through fairness, everyone who has a baby (both men and women) should be allowed so many weeks off - paid. This of course is unfair on those not having children. But children do benefit society (as long as they are raised properly - poverty would cause more badly behaved children so paying for maternity leave and being more liberal would actually encourage better behaved youngsters.)

I personally don't want children but I don't mind people who do and them having time off.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Being the father of 3, I'm all too familiar with how unfair
some companies treat their female employees.

My wife was a highly knowledgeable and well respected store manager for a local business.
The store she worked in was a ten minute walk from our home.
One week before she was due to return from maternity leave, she found out that her managment position had been given to someone else and they had transferred her to another store an hour and 15 minutes away on the other side of town.
Of course they were hoping she would quit.

Many of her customers respected her so much that they ordered by phone or drove to the new store rather than deal with the new, less qualified manager.

The prenatal, doctor and hospital fees had all been paid by my health insurance, so her company had been fortunate.

From that point on she was continually passed over for management
positions although everyone knew she was the most qualified.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Being the father of 3, I'm all too familiar with how unfair
some companies treat their female employees.

My wife was a highly knowledgeable and well respected store manager for a local business.
The store she worked in was a ten minute walk from our home.
One week before she was due to return from maternity leave, she found out that her managment position had been given to someone else and they had transferred her to another store an hour and 15 minutes away on the other side of town.
Of course they were hoping she would quit.

Many of her customers respected her so much that they ordered by phone or drove to the new store rather than deal with the new, less qualified manager.

The prenatal, doctor and hospital fees had all been paid by my health insurance, so her company had been fortunate.

From that point on she was continually passed over for management
positions although everyone knew she was the most qualified.

I am confused by your previous post. Obviously you'd agree something needs to be done.

[crazychester]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
I am confused by your previous post. Obviously you'd agree something needs to be done. His previous post is what's known in the business as sarcasm. ;)

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by crazychester
His previous post is what's known in the business as sarcasm. ;)

I understand that it was sarcastic but the tone of the sarcasm seems to imply it's all a fuss about nothing and should be left where it is. That's why I'm confused! We, then English, invented sarcasm and I don't know anyone more sarcastic than myself (although not in this post). For somebody who seems to now be pro-reform the previous post seems contradictory.

Anyway the important thing is to encourage women to have children and make it more difficult for these companies to abuse people's rights. There need to be adequate laws in place etc.

[Protostar]

CrazyChester I really dont understand your hateful and spiteful tone. I have not once called you any name but every time you've posted to this thread your insults have ranged from "shit for brains" to "fuckwit". Now, I can understand that you are opposed to my views but I would like to think we could at least carry on a civilized debate; but obviously this concept is far above someone with a mentality as childish as yours. But I will keep replying to your posts, however stupid and simple your replies may be.

What you're really dirty on is that pregnancy (at least in your eyes) doesn't involve suffering. Hell, a lot of them actually seem to look forward to it. Damn those bitches, how dare they?

I said it once and I'll say it again, IT'S A CHOICE!. They choose to endure that suffering. If I were a woman (in some strange parallel universe in a galaxy far,far,away) do you think I go through all that suffering to have some kid and risk losing my job? No! What's more important to me some kid (which would cost money) or my job (which brings in money)? I'll let you answer that one.

I don't discuss with scum like you. You should never have been allowed to get away with this thread. It's fucking disgusting. You make anymore of your "it's all her fault she got pregnant" comments and I promise I will go all out to get this stinking, piss weak excuse of a thread locked.

Well then here we go. It is her fault because if its not her fault then whose is it (other than the man who shares half the blame)? Why should companies be punished because of some foolish woman's decision? I look forward to your response CrazyChester.

BTW if you dont discuss (whatever, 'cause you too stupid to put what) then why are you posting?

Out

[Outsider]

"I said it once and I'll say it again, IT'S A CHOICE!. They choose to endure that suffering. If I were a woman (in some strange parallel universe in a galaxy far,far,away) do you think I go through all that suffering to have some kid and risk losing my job? No! What's more important to me some kid (which would cost money) or my job (which brings in money)? I'll let you answer that one."

Holy crap, are you some sort of parody or something? Money is more important than a child? You're going against all human instinct.

I would quit my job in a second if I was forced to make a decision like that. So would 99% of other people.

[Ra]

Originally posted by Outsider
Holy crap, are you some sort of parody or something? Money is more important than a child? You're going against all human instinct. He'd rather have money than a kid. That's just his opinion. Don't freak out.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Outsider
"I said it once and I'll say it again, IT'S A CHOICE!. They choose to endure that suffering. If I were a woman (in some strange parallel universe in a galaxy far,far,away) do you think I go through all that suffering to have some kid and risk losing my job? No! What's more important to me some kid (which would cost money) or my job (which brings in money)? I'll let you answer that one."

Holy crap, are you some sort of parody or something? Money is more important than a child? You're going against all human instinct.

I would quit my job in a second if I was forced to make a decision like that. So would 99% of other people.

But can't you see the unfairness. Why should the women suffer and not the men? It's a choice between two people. The answer is not to sacrifice your job by having a baby but get in proper legislation that stops management kicking you out for having a child.

[sunilraman]

i find pregnant women, with their glowing with fertility and all, quite attractive. jazzes up the workplace a bit in that sense, if ya know what i mean ;)

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by sunilraman
i find pregnant women, with their glowing with fertility and all, quite attractive. jazzes up the workplace a bit in that sense, if ya know what i mean ;)

great another serious response to this real issue. :(

Although I do tend to agree with you ;)

[sunilraman]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
great another serious response to this real issue. :(

Although I do tend to agree with you ;)

tee hee :D

nah, just trying to remind people that sexual energy and humour are very potent tools for healing, when faced with diabolical situations especially when we are reflecting on workplace situations

for example while freelancing at a major australian company i had to bite my tongue when this non-australian-born asian man was saying something quite derogatory about muslim women to a australian-born caucasian co-worker :\

[Outsider]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
But can't you see the unfairness. Why should the women suffer and not the men? It's a choice between two people. The answer is not to sacrifice your job by having a baby but get in proper legislation that stops management kicking you out for having a child. I definately agree with that.

[midwinter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazychester

CrazyChester: What's 2005-1987?

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Outsider
I definately agree with that.

I can't understand why anybody couldn't. It's a perfectly reasonable statement. It's amazing how sexist people can be.

[Protostar]

But can't you see the unfairness. Why should the women suffer and not the men? It's a choice between two people. The answer is not to sacrifice your job by having a baby but get in proper legislation that stops management kicking you out for having a child.

Who says men dont suffer? Everyone suffers at one point in their life or another. Women arent the only ones that suffer and it sickens me when they try and portray that they are. And management does not kick you out for having a kid, they fire you because of the lost productivity in relation to having a kid. A company could care less if you have children but they do care a lot about productivity because it affects the bottom line, and that my friend is what is important

[crazychester]

Originally posted by midwinter
CrazyChester: What's 2005-1987? Well you'd think it might be old enough to know that this isn't the basis for a worthwhile discussion

The Argument:
Employers shouldn't have to bear the costs of maternity leave.

Reasoning - Why not?
Because it's a woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

Justification - How come?
Because she can.

But it turns out you can be even older and still not know it, doesn't it groverat.

But then, of course, boys tend to mature much later, don't they?

[midwinter]

I'm just saying there's a reason people younger than 18 can't vote.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Protostar
Who says men dont suffer? Everyone suffers at one point in their life or another. Women arent the only ones that suffer and it sickens me when they try and portray that they are. And management does not kick you out for having a kid, they fire you because of the lost productivity in relation to having a kid. A company could care less if you have children but they do care a lot about productivity because it affects the bottom line, and that my friend is what is important

Well they will be less productive when the parents having the child have time off - they'll need to get as replacement. They have to be prepared for this. Companies need to be flexible and legislation needs to be in place. It's not just the women who suffer. It's a couple's right to have child. They shouldn't be scared about losing their job.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm just saying there's a reason people younger than 18 can't vote.

My female friend heartily agrees with you. She also says words that cannot be repeated about CrazyChester. I'm trying to avoid personal insults but his views are sexist and based in the stone age.

[crazychester]

Oh it just gets better and better........

[groverat]

If you think this is a constructive course to take then continue taking it, CC. I will advise you that it is not.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
My female friend heartily agrees with you. She also says words that cannot be repeated about CrazyChester. I'm trying to avoid personal insults but his views are sexist and based in the stone age.

Um, "his" views?

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by midwinter
Um, "his" views?

yeah CrazyChesters. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Protostar
A company could care less if you have children but they do care a lot about productivity because it affects the bottom line, and that my friend is what is important
You are Lee Iacocca and I claim my £5.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
yeah CrazyChesters. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Intriguing. Seeing as crazychester is one of the few resident women who frequent this place and has, by all rights, been an insanely wonderful person to everyone here.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Intriguing. Seeing as crazychester is one of the few resident women who frequent this place and has, by all rights, been an insanely wonderful person to everyone here.

well ok change his to her. I tend to use his in the generic sense, but sorry if I offended. "Her" views are still sexist and based in the stone age. It's a couple's decision to have a child and it shouldn't be the women who suffers and loses her job. There should be legislation in place to stop discrimination but also (i left this out before) help out smaller companies pay for it.

crazychester: what do you think of paternity leave?

[groverat]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Intriguing. Seeing as crazychester is one of the few resident women who frequent this place and has, by all rights, been an insanely wonderful person to nearly everyone here.


Fixed.

[crazychester]

Ah billybob, if things were different I'd offer to have your babies for you. :D

I think he's got me confused with Protostar. I've been (intentionally) insulting but I haven't been sexist. And I'm pretty sure I haven't given any indication that I disagree with his opinions. He's already got himself in a bit of a muddle with FallenFromThe Tree and Outsider's posts so I'm not taking it personally. At least his heart's in the right place.

MacCrazy I'm not offended by you thinking I'm male. I realize the name's confusing. I wholeheartedly support maternity and paternity leave. I've been doing my darnedest to get this thread locked, fully aware from the outset that I risk having to fall on my sword in the process. But occasionally, rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Unfortunately, AI has a long tradition of ignoring the sort of offensiveness towards women that Protostar has championed even though far lesser crimes pertaining to different subjects are regularly punished. That's because the site is run by males, for males.

I hasten to add, I have no problem with people arguing against maternity leave per se provided, as say Gon has done, they put forth a case that is vaguely reasonable. However, the only argument against Protostar's claim that "it's women's fault they get pregnant" is "no it isn't", followed by "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is" ad infinitum. If he'd said, a woman's place is in the home or children are better off if their mothers don't work, I'd have no problem. As much as I disagree, there's no hatred implicit in those comments and they are defensible by both sides. But to say that employers shouldn't have to bear the cost of maternity leave because women are to blame for getting themselves knocked up, has nothing whatsoever to commend it as a basis for intelligent debate, and why on earth anyone in their right mind would want to encourage such discussion is beyond me.

Thus far, nobody's presented any good reasons for keeping this thread open. The best I've been offered is all that "you're too sensitive" and rules stuff that people use when they want to avoid the issue. Not locking a thread because someone's views are idiotic fails to address too many issues. Personally, I think getting banned (no recrimminations, no questions asked) in return for the thread being locked is a pretty fair trade especially given that, if all things were equal, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

But, of course, all things aren't equal.

Unfortunately, groverat will probably ban me now but keep the thread open because he's a stubborn bastard and heartily pissed off with me. C'est la vie. At least the pointless emails will stop and he won't get to keep deluding himself that he's being clever by addressing me as "Margie dear". On the down side, every spook on the planet has been given the greenlight to base their arguments on prejudice and hate.

Yeah, I have to admit, I think I want it groverat. Seeing this guy's remarks allowed to stand is really depressing. Just a couple of things. Do be sure to pass my comments onto the rest of The Management. A copy of the emails will do nicely. I don't need you to paraphrase me (or you) thanks. And unless necessary or you're invited, I can't think of any reason why you'd need to email rather than PM me. So don't, OK?

BTW midwinter he's only a few months off voting age (assuming he's telling the truth). Commiserations. Glad he's one of yours and not ours. :p

[groverat]

http://www.beckhamsite.com/images-goof/martyr.png

[groverat]

Originally posted by crazychester
Thus far, nobody's presented any good reasons for keeping this thread open.

I've got a great reason:
The only person who has actually broken any rules is the person who wants it closed.

I think that's a fantastically wonderful reason to leave a thread open. Fantasmically wondifferous!

[shetline]

Originally posted by Protostar
A company could care less if you have children but they do care a lot about productivity because it affects the bottom line, and that my friend is what is important
Has it never occurred to you that businesses have social responsibilities beyond their own bottom lines?

If it hasn't, I'll give you one good reason why you should start thinking about this: it's called incorporation.

Let's for the moment set aside the case of small private businesses. For the most part, I believe such businesses are generally exempt from rules that would force them to pay for a woman's maternity leave anyway.

Why do most large business incorporate? The biggest reason: limited liability. We, as a society, give those who run corporations a shield to hide behind that limits their personal risk if the business should fail. Who pays when a corporation goes bankrupt? We all do. Creditors are left holding the bag, those costs eventually get distributed to all of us. Corporate owners and corporate management get off very lightly compared to their responsibility for the failure.

Company fails: Large publicly distributed costs, typically small private costs.
Company succeeds: Small public benefit (tax revenues), large private gains.

"Socialize the risk, privatize the gain" as the saying goes.

Given this kind of sweetheart deal corporations get, I personally consider it very reasonable that corporations are in return obligated to fulfill certain societal obligations, such as providing greater employment security for maternity leave, paternity leave, and in many other ways.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by crazychester

MacCrazy I'm not offended by you thinking I'm male. I realize the name's confusing. I wholeheartedly support maternity and paternity leave. I've been doing my darnedest to get this thread locked, fully aware from the outset that I risk having to fall on my sword in the process. But occasionally, rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Unfortunately, AI has a long tradition of ignoring the sort of offensiveness towards women that Protostar has championed even though far lesser crimes pertaining to different subjects are regularly punished. That's because the site is run by males, for males.


So where you being sarcastic (about women not deserving maternity leave)? I'm really confused!! :???:

[Protostar]

Company fails: Large publicly distributed costs, typically small private costs.
Company succeeds: Small public benefit (tax revenues), large private gains.

You said it right there. Taxes. The corporation has already piad its due to the public through taxes. If the gov't wants corporations to give women maternity leave then they should compensate them for the lost productivity. The first two parts contradict each other. If the public bears large distributed costs if the company fails then the public will have large public gains if the company succeeds.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Protostar
You said it right there. Taxes. The corporation has already piad its due to the public through taxes. If the gov't wants corporations to give women maternity leave then they should compensate them for the lost productivity. The first two parts contradict each other. If the public bears large distributed costs if the company fails then the public will have large public gains if the company succeeds.

I think most people agree with you. It shouldn't be the company that pays. It should be the government, as it is the government that is trying to encourage more children (in the UK anyway).

[shetline]

Originally posted by Protostar
You said it right there. Taxes. The corporation has already piad its due to the public through taxes.
Think of the right to incorporation as a kind of contract between a company and the public. The terms of that contract are not fixed. The public has a right through democratic process to change the terms.

Besides, small private companies that don't enjoy the benefits of incorporation still pay taxes. What makes you think paying taxes in and of itself automatically rules out any other responsibility that the public can rightfully expect a corporation to fulfill in exchange for the benefits of incorporation? (Further, there are plenty of so-called conservatives who wish to eliminate all corporate taxes, leaving the burden of taxation mostly on middle-income wage earners, while the corporate fat cats shield most of their wealth from taxation via tax shelters and bookkeeping tricks.)

You seem to believe that corporations have some sort of intrinsic right to act like selfish bottom-line oriented individuals as long as they pay their taxes. In fact I'd say you speak as if acting with such narrow self interest is more than a right, that it's almost a sacred duty.

Corporations, however, are not individuals. They are legal constructs, constructs with no inherent rights, and rightfully subject to the popular law of the society that exposes itself to risk on behalf of the corporate entity. I can think of no legal or moral basis why the public should limit itself to taxation as the only obligation it imposes in exchange for the the benefits of incorporation.
If the gov't wants corporations to give women maternity leave then they should compensate them for the lost productivity.
I have no objection to a possible government role in helping with such costs, but there's no reason to consider that kind of help necessary before imposing the obligation of providing maternity leave.

Why do you so desire the public to be such a meek, powerless partner in the terms of incorporation? Why do you think the public should be happy to possibly receive a little tax revenue and should otherwise keep quiet?

The first two parts contradict each other. If the public bears large distributed costs if the company fails then the public will have large public gains if the company succeeds.
The difference is that the gains of a successful company are focussed narrowly on stockholders and, quite often, a small group of highly (grossly over-?) paid top executives. The public at large may receive some "trickle down" benefit from all of this, but it's not at all proportional to its risk exposure. Hence the expression "socialize the risk, privatize the gain".

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
I think most people agree with you. It shouldn't be the company that pays. It should be the government, as it is the government that is trying to encourage more children (in the UK anyway).

This actually raises a good point: Does mat leave in the US obligate the company to continue paying woman? I've never heard this. In Canada, women on mat leave are paid a portion of their income though the EI system. ((un)Employment Insurance).

Although I fully support maternity leaves and the guarantee of their position upon return, I would probably question leaving it to the company to continue paying the employee in full, with no compensation from the government.

[ATI-MAN]

i think women should all stay home and rear children, and have no jobs that way it would eliminate this whole argument. further more whats with that equality shit. it all ok when women are making money , but when it comes to getting drafted look who still has to by law sign up to be drafted(men) and look at who doesnt want to go to war, who instead wants to stay home and look cute?

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Tulkas
This actually raises a good point: Does mat leave in the US obligate the company to continue paying woman? I've never heard this. In Canada, women on mat leave are paid a portion of their income though the EI system. ((un)Employment Insurance).

Although I fully support maternity leaves and the guarantee of their position upon return, I would probably question leaving it to the company to continue paying the employee in full, with no compensation from the government.

unfortunately most men don't think like you, and they're the ones who run the companies.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by ATI-MAN
i think women should all stay home and rear children, and have no jobs that way it would eliminate this whole argument. further more whats with that equality shit. it all ok when women are making money , but when it comes to getting drafted look who still has to by law sign up to be drafted(men) and look at who doesnt want to go to war, who instead wants to stay home and look cute?

Well, protostar, there is no draft. It would take an act of congress to pass one. At that time it is very likely that both men and women would get drafted.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by ATI-MAN
i think women should all stay home and rear children, and have no jobs that way it would eliminate this whole argument. further more whats with that equality shit. it all ok when women are making money , but when it comes to getting drafted look who still has to by law sign up to be drafted(men) and look at who doesnt want to go to war, who instead wants to stay home and look cute?

I thought he was being sarcastic, a quick look at his other posts soon eliminates that idea. I can't believe some people can really think like this.

There isn't equality, men are lacking rights for looking after their children after a divorce. Women are lacking rights for work and prejudice. It's a real problem.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MacCrazy
I thought he was being sarcastic, a quick look at his other posts soon eliminates that idea. I can't believe some people can really think like this.

There isn't equality, men are lacking rights for looking after their children after a divorce. Women are lacking rights for work and prejudice. It's a real problem.

Is your sarcasm meter ok?

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Is your sarcasm meter ok?

NO. It's seriously damaged. I think Americans use sarcasm differently and I get confused. :err:

[FallenFromTheTree]

Some people should be eternally grateful that their precious DNA
wasn't splattered all over the wrong side of a rubber raincoat. :D

[Stoo]

Since men cant get pregnant (not that any man would want to)

Were you traumatised by the movie Junior as a child?

A company could care less

What, they care more than some minimal amount? That's heartening to hear. :)

[Protostar]

Why do you so desire the public to be such a meek, powerless partner in the terms of incorporation? Why do you think the public should be happy to possibly receive a little tax revenue and should otherwise keep quiet?

Little tax revenue? Do you not realize that the corporate incomes tax is the third highest revenue maker for the federal gov't?

[Protostar]

Well they will be less productive when the parents having the child have time off - they'll need to get as replacement. They have to be prepared for this. Companies need to be flexible and legislation needs to be in place. It's not just the women who suffer. It's a couple's right to have child. They shouldn't be scared about losing their job.

And that's what these companies are doing. They're REPLACING the pregnant workers. You said it's a couple's right to have a child, and it is. Noone is taking away this right. Companies are not forbidding their employees from having children. The couple should have to be prepared for their OWN child, not the company.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Protostar
Little tax revenue? Do you not realize that the corporate incomes tax is the third highest revenue maker for the federal gov't?

The government isn't a business. It isn't revenue. It is funding.

And it would undoubtedly be higher if business actually paid taxes instead of finding loopholes out of them.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Protostar
And that's what these companies are doing. They're REPLACING the pregnant workers. You said it's a couple's right to have a child, and it is. Noone is taking away this right. Companies are not forbidding their employees from having children. The couple should have to be prepared for their OWN child, not the company.

Hmmm.......so, if the company was to try to prevent employees from having children, which it sounds like you would disagree with them doing, how exactly do you think they might do this? Might they perhaps fire them?

So on one hand, you say the companies aren't forbidding pregnancy and seem to support this. On the other hand you are saying that the company should have the right to fire pregnant employees for becoming pregnant. hmmm...sounds like you ned to go back to your high-school econ teacher, or whomever it is that is filling you with these really lame, weak arguements and ask them to make up your mind for you. You/they seem to be a little conflicted.

[FallenFromTheTree]

If our government wasn't squandering away trillions of our hard earned
tax dollars to support the special interests of multi billion dollar corporations, then perhaps all of us would have enough food, clothing, shelter, health care, free access to higher education and better long term care and retirement benefits.

The truth is that we generate enough money to easily afford all of these things, but we don't have the guts to correct the abuse of those who remain in control.

Perhaps Protostar would be happier if his own mother had decided
that her job security was far more important than he was.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

Perhaps Protostar would be happier if his own mother had decided
that her job security was far more important than he was.
The Post With No Comeback.

[MacCrazy]

Originally posted by Protostar
And that's what these companies are doing. They're REPLACING the pregnant workers. You said it's a couple's right to have a child, and it is. Noone is taking away this right. Companies are not forbidding their employees from having children. The couple should have to be prepared for their OWN child, not the company.

BUT cxompanies should only hav eht replacement while the perrson is having the child. They should be allowed and expected to come back. That's my problem.

[Protostar]

Revenue,funding whatever you want to call it. Businesses aren't the only ones finding loopholes. I'm sure alot of individuals do as well. And besides, if there are loopholes whos fault is that: the businesses or the gov'ts?

[Protostar]

So on one hand, you say the companies aren't forbidding pregnancy and seem to support this. On the other hand you are saying that the company should have the right to fire pregnant employees for becoming pregnant. hmmm...sounds like you ned to go back to your high-school econ teacher, or whomever it is that is filling you with these really lame, weak arguements and ask them to make up your mind for you. You/they seem to be a little conflicted.

Wrong again. I don't support firing employees just b/c their pregnant, I support firing them b/c of the long term lost productivity. If a woman could come back in a week after having a child I'm sure companies could live with that (provided they use their vacation time). But 4-6 weeks? Seems a little excessive to me. Also if a pregnant woman is unable to fulfill her duties b/c of her pregnancy then she should be let go as well. As a manager I would look at the productivity of the worker not whether she pregnant or not.

Perhaps Protostar would be happier if his own mother had decided
that her job security was far more important than he was.

That would have been fine with me b/c as great and godly as I am I would have eventually been born.:)

BUT companies should only have the replacement while the person is having the child. They should be allowed and expected to come back. That's my problem.

So they should let the woman go have her kid, go through the expense of hiring a temp worker, and then bring her back? Sounds alot easier just to hire a new person, which is exactly what these companies are doing.

[midwinter]

Let me get this straight, Protostar. Are you really suggesting that women need to have more abortions so they can keep their jobs?

[Harald]

Originally posted by Protostar
So they should let the woman go have her kid, go through the expense of hiring a temp worker, and then bring her back? Sounds alot easier just to hire a new person, which is exactly what these companies are doing.

You are writing as if these women are just working machines, not people. As if the sum total of human happiness and fulfilment is less important then profit.

Brainwashed, sonny, every bit as bad as USSR dwellers who could see no wrong with the Soviet system.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Originally posted by Protostar

That would have been fine with me b/c as great and godly as I am I would have eventually been born.:)





Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Protostar

IT"S A TROLL!

[crazychester]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Protostar

IT"S A TROLL! Yes it is a troll. So Mr Troll, seeing as Adam dear is so keen on it, let's make you work for your keep.

Your flip-flopping on the issue throughout this entire thread is pretty disingenuous Protostar. First off, employers shouldn't bear the cost of maternity leave because it's a woman's fault if she gets pregnant. Then later on, maternity leave is OK as long as the government pays. Which is it? And how come you hadn't decided before you came in here making statements like "a company should not have bear the cost of lost productivity just because you decide to go and get knocked up"? Hmm? I'm all ears Protostar.

Pregnancy is a woman's choice? Employers shouldn't be able to fire employees because they're pregnant but should be able to if they're not pulling their weight (because the employee needs to duck off and "pop" out a kid, as you so charmingly put it). Well not quite. Pregnancy is actually a major life activity. No, that's not my definition. That's the US Supreme Court's (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-156.ZS.html) definition. So (and I know this will make you apopleptic Protostar), if a woman can't have children and meets the other criteria of the Americans with Disabilities Act, she's regarded as being disabled.

Now about this terribly burdensome maternity leave that is tearing apart the fabric of US industry. What exactly does it entail. Let's see shall we? Yes let's!
Family and Medical Leave Act FAQ (http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/fmla/faq.asp)
Q: How much leave am I entitled to under FMLA?
If you are an "eligible" employee, you are entitled to 12 weeks of leave for certain family and medical reasons during a 12-month period. I know, shock, horror! (I'm being sarcastic MacCrazy). But don't worry Protostar it gets better.

Q: Does the law guarantee paid time off?
No. The FMLA only requires unpaid leave. However, the law permits an employee to elect, or the employer to require the employee, to use accrued paid leave, such as vacation or sick leave, for some or all of the FMLA leave period. When paid leave is substituted for unpaid FMLA leave, it may be counted against the 12-week FMLA leave entitlement if the employee is properly notified of the designation when the leave begins. So, provided the employer notifies the employee, part or all of the maternity leave might be covered by entitlements they would have had to pay anyway. I don't recall you mentioning this Protostar.

Q: Can the employer count leave taken due to pregnancy complications against the 12 weeks of FMLA leave for the birth and care of my child?
Yes. An eligible employee is entitled to a total of 12 weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period. If the employee has to use some of that leave for another reason, including a difficult pregnancy, it may be counted as part of the 12-week FMLA leave entitlement. Whew! Don't want to have to pay any more for some lousy bitch lying about in bed because of a difficult pregnancy. (more sarcasm MacCrazy)

Q: Which employees are eligible to take FMLA leave?
Employ